Tag Archives: WSJ

Wall Street Journal Calls for Mueller to Resign | Dec 05 2017

WSJ Demands “Too Conflicted” Mueller To Resign From Russia Probe

|| WSJ

“D.C. was set ablaze following reports that special counsel Robert Mueller was forced to fire FBI agent Peter Strzok from the Russia probe over anti-Trump text messages.

On Monday, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed calling for Mueller to resign from the probe.

WSJ reports:

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview. […]

The latest news supports our view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn’t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.

Unlike the mainstream media, The Gateway Pundit has long believed the chief objective behind Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation is to nullify the results of the 2016 presidential election. In fact, while both liberals and conservatives declared the ‘honorable,’ ‘highly respected,’ Mueller was the correct man to lead the Russia probe, this website expressed deep reservations about the special counsel’s character and history as a prosecutor.

Michael Flynn’s guilty plea, followed by a tweet sent out by President Trump’s lawyer John Dowd, appearing to imply the White House was aware of the former National Security Advisor lied to the FBI, has brought an odd, new focus to the mission behind Mueller’s probe. Former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy writes in the National Review that Mueller’s end game is now clear as day; impeach the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

“It is now an obstruction investigation,” McCarthy writes in reference to Mueller’s probe, “Which means that it’s an impeachment investigation.”

Assuming I am correct about Mueller’s theory, its fatal flaw as a vehicle for prosecution is the same as it has always been: As president, Trump had incontestable power to exercise prosecutorial discretion and to fire the FBI director. […] The FBI and the Justice Department are not a separate branch of government; they are subordinates of the president delegated to exercise his power, not their own. Even on Comey’s account, Trump did not order him to shut down the Flynn investigation, even though he could have. Trump could have ordered an end of the Russia counterintelligence investigation, but he did not.

Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor to President Trump, pleaded guilty Friday to making false statements to the FBI about contacting Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition.”

….Continue reading more @ TGP

 

John Oliver Gets Into Heated Argument With Dustin Hoffman Over Sexual Harassment Claims

|| The Hollywood Reporter

“At a ‘Wag the Dog’ 20th anniversary screening, the ‘Last Week Tonight’ host questioned the Oscar-winning actor about recent allegations of inappropriate behavior.

John Oliver got into a testy argument with Dustin Hoffman over sexual harassment allegations against the Oscar-winning actor at a film panel in New York on Monday night.

At a 20th anniversary panel and screening of the political film Wag the Dog, Oliver asked Hoffman about recent sexual harassment allegations made against him by Anna Graham Hunter, going back to when she was a 17-year-old production assistant on the 1985 TV film Death of a Salesman. According to The Washington Post‘s Steve Zeitchik, who tweeted about the back-and-forth as it happened and later posted a full story and video of what transpired, Hoffman “grew visibly uncomfortable.”

The Last Week Tonight host broached the subject approximately halfway through the hourlong prescreening discussion, according to Zeitchik’s story.

“This is something we’re going to have to talk about because … it’s hanging in the air,” Oliver said to Hoffman at the discussion, according to the Post.

“It’s hanging in the air?” Hoffman said. “From a few things you’ve read you’ve made an incredible assumption about me,” he noted, adding sarcastically, “You’ve made the case better than anyone else can. I’m guilty.”

Oliver seized in particular on Hoffman’s apology after The Hollywood Reporter revealed the allegations against the actor.

When contacted by THR, Hoffman said, “I have the utmost respect for women and feel terrible that anything I might have done could have put her in an uncomfortable situation. I am sorry. It is not reflective of who I am.”

“It’s ‘not reflective of who I am’ — it’s that kind of response to this stuff that pisses me off,” Oliver said during the panel discussion, according to the Post. “It is reflective of who you were. If you’ve given no evidence to show it didn’t [happen] then there was a period of time for a while when you were a creeper around women. It feels like a cop-out to say, ‘It wasn’t me.’ Do you understand how that feels like a dismissal?”

The rest of the discussion was dominated by Oliver, Hoffman and the subject of sexual harassment, with other panel participants and audience members trying to change the subject, the Post reports, claiming that Oliver himself even tried to move on and talk about the film but Hoffman returned to the harassment claims.

Hoffman said several times Monday night that he didn’t believe he’d done anything wrong, the Post reported. He said he didn’t recall meeting Graham Hunter and that whatever he said on set was simply how members of “a family” talked to one another, the Post says.

“I still don’t know who this woman is,” Hoffman said. “I never met her; if I met her it was in concert with other people.”

The actor said he felt blindsided because neither Oliver nor organizers told him the moderator would raise the subject, according to the Post.

At one point, Hoffman asked Oliver if he believed the reports about him and Oliver said, “Yes, because there’s no point in [an accuser] lying.”

“Well, there’s a point in her not bringing it up for 40 years,” Hoffman said.

“Oh Dustin,” Oliver said disapprovingly, putting his head in his hand.

Oliver said he considered not bringing up the contentious subject at what was intended to be a benign event but decided he had an obligation to do so, the Post reported.

“I can’t leave certain things unaddressed,” the host said. “The easy way is not to bring anything up. Unfortunately that leaves me at home later at night hating myself. ‘Why the … didn’t I say something? No one stands up to powerful men.'”

“Am I the powerful man?” Hoffman asked.

Hoffman later said to Oliver of the allegations against him, “You weren’t there,” and the Last Week Tonight host replied, “I’m happy [I wasn’t],” according to Zeitchik.”

….Continue reading more @ THR

Wall Street Journal Calls for Robert Mueller to Resign | Oct 26 2017

With FBI Actions Now Under Suspicion, WSJ Editors Call on Special Counsel Mueller to Resign

|| Townhall

“In my earlier analysis of the latest dossier/collusion developments — which have taken an abrupt turn in the last week, to the dismay of many liberals — I wrote that newly-revealed and -confirmed details raise serious and uncomfortable questions for both the Democratic Party and the FBI.  In a house editorial published today, the Wall Street Journal’s editors explicate several of those questions that demand a full accounting. First, on the Democrats:

The Washington Post revealed Tuesday that the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee jointly paid for that infamous “dossier” full of Russian disinformation against Donald Trump. They filtered the payments through a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie), which hired the opposition-research hit men at Fusion GPS. Fusion in turn tapped a former British spook, Christopher Steele, to compile the allegations, which are based largely on anonymous, Kremlin-connected sources. Strip out the middlemen, and it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a U.S. presidential candidate. Did someone say “collusion”? This news is all the more explosive because the DNC and Clinton campaign hid their role, even amid the media furor after BuzzFeed published the Steele dossier in January. Reporters are now saying that Clinton campaign officials lied to them about their role in the dossier.Current DNC Chair Tom Perez and former Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz deny knowing about the dossier arrangement, but someone must have known. Perhaps this explains why Congressional Democrats have been keen to protect Fusion from answering dossier questions—disrupting hearings, protesting subpoenas and deriding Republican investigators.

Are Perez and Wasserman Schultz’s denials credible? As a New York Times reporter notes, Democratic dollars that flowed to Fusion GPS and Steele were effectively laundered through a law firm — but they were still coming out of DNC coffers:

Democrats furtively funding dubious opposition research, then misleading journalists about is a minor scandal. Democrats furtively funding dubious opposition research that allegedly enlisted senior Russian sources to spread salacious disinformation about the Republican presidential nominee, however, is deeply ironic, given the Great Russian Scare they’ve been pumping for months. It appears as though some officials at the highest reaches of the party were at least indirectly facilitating Russian interference in the 2016 election. How intentional or conscious was this loose, once-removed potential collusion? That should be rigorously investigated. Nevertheless, the element of this whole saga that most concerns me is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s hazy and bizarre role. Back to the Journal editors:

The more troubling question is whether the FBI played a role, even if inadvertently, in assisting a Russian disinformation campaign. We know the agency possessed the dossier in 2016, and according to media reports it debated paying Mr. Steele to continue his work in the runup to the election. This occurred while former FBI Director James Comey was ramping up his probe into supposed ties between the Trump campaign and Russians. Two pertinent questions: Did the dossier trigger the FBI probe of the Trump campaign, and did Mr. Comey or his agents use it as evidence to seek wiretapping approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Trump campaign aides?

Mr. Comey should already be asked to return to Capitol Hill to testify on his premature decision to draft a memo (controversially) exonerating Hillary Clinton of legal wrongdoing in connection with her email scandal — which he reportedly wrote prior to key witnesses being interviewed, including Clinton herself. He should be compelled to answer questions on this subject, too. Also, if anything, this editorial understates the strangeness of the FBI’s activity here; the Washington Post story confirmed that the Bureau went beyond merely “debating” whether to pay Steele to continue his Democrat-initiated, anti-Trump opposition research. They actually did it. And they only stopped when the media reported this information publicly. In what way was that a sound, politics-free investigative practice?  Because these loaded questions are now a major focus of the Russia interference matter, the FBI itself is now a subject of important scrutiny.  For that reason, the editorial concludes, Robert Mueller must go:

The Fusion news means the FBI’s role in Russia’s election interference must now be investigated—even as the FBI and Justice insist that Mr. Mueller’s probe prevents them from cooperating with Congressional investigators. Mr. Mueller is a former FBI director, and for years he worked closely with Mr. Comey. It is no slur against Mr. Mueller’s integrity to say that he lacks the critical distance to conduct a credible probe of the bureau he ran for a dozen years. He could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.”

….Continue reading more @ Townhall

Donald Trump Wins Presidency of the United States | Nov 8 2016

Donald Trump Wins Presidency, AP Projects

– WSJ

tr8

“The AP has just called Wisconsin for Mr. Trump, handing the New York businessman the presidency. Mr. Trump is expected to speak shortly at his campaign’s victory party in New York.”

….Continue reading @ Wall Street Journal

 

Win in Pennsylvania All but Assures Victory

– The New York Times

NY Times 2016 Election Map

FBI Secret Recordings Spark Internal Fight Over Govt Sandbagging of Clinton Investigations | Nov 2016

Secret Recordings Fueled FBI Feud in Clinton Probe

– WSJ  |  Devlin Barrett & Christoper M. Matthews

jamescomey_070815frx

Agents thought they had enough material to merit aggressively pursuing investigation into Clinton Foundation

“Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay, people familiar with the matter said.

Agents, using informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations, thought they had found enough material to merit aggressively pursuing the investigation into the foundation that started in summer 2015 based on claims made in a book by a conservative author called “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” these people said.

Amid the internal finger-pointing on the Clinton Foundation matter, some have blamed the FBI’s No. 2 official, deputy director Andrew McCabe, claiming he sought to stop agents from pursuing the case this summer. His defenders deny that, and say it was the Justice Department that kept pushing back on the investigation.

Within the FBI, some felt they had moved well beyond the allegations made in the anti-Clinton book. At least two confidential informants from other public-corruption investigations had provided details about the Clinton Foundation to the FBI, these people said.

The FBI had secretly recorded conversations of a suspect in a public-corruption case talking about alleged deals the Clintons made, these people said. The agents listening to the recordings couldn’t tell from the conversations if what the suspect was describing was accurate, but it was, they thought, worth checking out.

Prosecutors thought the talk was hearsay and a weak basis to warrant aggressive tactics, like presenting evidence to a grand jury, because the person who was secretly recorded wasn’t inside the Clinton Foundation.

FBI investigators grew increasingly frustrated with resistance from the corruption prosecutors, and some executives at the bureau itself, to keep pursuing the case.”

…Continue reading @ WSJ.com

 

Recordings Led to FBI, DOJ Battle Over Whether to Investigate Clinton Foundation

– Mediaite  |  Josh Feldman

bhc2x

 

“A new report out tonight says that there were some pretty fierce internal tensions between FBI investigators and Justice Department officials over whether they had enough to pursue an “aggressive” investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

The Wall Street Journal put out this new report tonight days after the paper reported that the FBI investigation may have been shut down completely by the DOJ.

This report comes on the heels of another report from Fox News earlier tonight that the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation is now reportedly a “very high priority.”

….Continue reading @ Mediaite.com

 

 

Collusion Shown between Obama White House and Clinton Campaign on Email Problems | Oct 2016

White House Coordinated on Clinton Email Issues, New Documents Show

– Wall Street Journal

34BC6C0D00000578-3614589-image-a-2_1464477517338x

Newly disclosed emails show top Obama administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server.

Their discussion included a request from the White House communications director to her counterpart at the State Department to see if it was possible to arrange for Secretary of State John Kerry to avoid questions during media appearances about Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement.

In another instance, a top State Department official assured an attorney for Mrs. Clinton that, contrary to media reports, a department official hadn’t told Congress that Mrs. Clinton erred in using a private email account.

The previously unreported emails were obtained by the Republican National Committee as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records of Mrs. Clinton’s time in office. The RNC provided to The Wall Street Journal only some of the emails, leaving it unclear what was in the remaining documents. The RNC said it released only emails relevant to the communication between the White House and State Department.”
….Continue reading @ WSJ.com